This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Should male circumcision be banned?

Originally Posted by Goshin

Like hell it isn't. So there.

I have no idea what you definition of nanny state is if you think that protecting people from an act that is guaranteed to cause bodily harm is a nanny state action. Why don't you explain it so we can move on.

I'm glad we've kept to the high road here, and maintained a lofty intellectual tone to the debate.

I'm not one to give effort when none is given. If you want this to be a one sided intellectual debate where your opponent offers all signs of intelligence have it with someone else.

Re: Should male circumcision be banned?

Originally Posted by Henrin

I have no idea what you definition of nanny state is if you think that protecting people from an act that is guaranteed to cause bodily harm is a nanny state action. Why don't you explain it so we can move on.

Male circumcision elicits no harmful effects. Not a word from you however on things that really are potentially harmful to the body such as repetitive cosmetic surgery, liposuction gone bad, tanning beds, etc.

Re: Should male circumcision be banned?

Originally Posted by Tashah

Male circumcision elicits no harmful effects. Not a word from you however on things that really are potentially harmful to the body such as repetitive cosmetic surgery, liposuction gone bad, tanning beds, etc.

Why is only one side in this thread actually attempting to have a discussion and the other side just wants to deflect everything?

Re: Should male circumcision be banned?

Originally Posted by scourge99

These "studies" have been highly criticized and discredited because of their methodological problems. For example, they did not complete their study. They just stopped as soon as they got the data they were looking for.

And even if it was true its still insignificant protection. Condoms and other prophylactics provide real, measurable, protection whereas circumcision does not.

Somebody could try to refute this statement. That would be interesting.

Re: Should male circumcision be banned?

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

As I said early on, if you are even vaguely aware with the nuts and bolts you can understand why this would be.

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

It would appear that these studies were concluded and pretty thorough.

Re: Should male circumcision be banned?

I am still pretty astonished at how emotional and downright vicious some people get over this issue. Particularly baffling is that many of the most irate don't have a penis! :

WTH is the big deal? Let those who want to do it, do it; those who don't, don't.

I mean WTF? My parents had me circumcised at birth; I don't give a ****. My son was circumcised at birth; he's never had any problems. Times when I've had to use communal showers or common changing rooms, something like 95% of the men appeared to be circumcised as far as I noticed, and I've yet to meet a single man who's told me it caused him problems or he wished he hadn't been.

If you don't like it, don't do it. Dayum.

Fiddling While Rome Burns
ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."